Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Macro Marvel Projects Limited, Chennai vs Cit (A), Chennai on 3 March, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI श्री अब्राहम पी. जॉर्ज, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष ।
[BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER]
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 72/Mds/2017
निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment year : 2013-2014
M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd,
No.813, Gleneden Place,
Poonamallee High Road,
Kilpauk,
Chennai 600 010.
[PAN AACCM 8816D]
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Corporate Ward 4(1)
Chennai.
(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)
(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)
अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by
:
Shri. M. Viswanathan, C.A.
प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by
:
Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
28-02-2017
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
03-03-2017
आदेश / O R D E R
In this appeal filed by the assessee, its assails an addition of ₹13,23,510/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act'') which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai vide its order dated 30.11.2016.
Facts apropos are that assessee a builder/property developer had filed a return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing income of ₹4,39,280/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had received a large number of credits in cash from one Shri. Raghukumar who happened to be a director of the assessee. The list of cash receipts of Shri. Raghukumar has been given in para 2.4 of the assessment order and it is not reproduced herein for brevity. However, there were eighty three number of credits each of which were below ₹20,000/-. As per ld. Assessing Officer assessee did not furnish cash flow statement of Shri. Raghukumar which could have proved the source of the credits totaling ₹13,23,510/-. An addition of the said amount was made u/s.68 of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee moved in appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Contention of the assessee was that the said director had advanced money considering needs of the assessee and later these amounts were repaid. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition noting that assessee failed to furnish the required details.
Now before me, ld. Authorised Representative strongly assailing the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that the director who had given the credits was himself an assessee and had produced bank account for proving credits. According to him, if an opportunity was granted, assessee could substantiate the source of credit.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee was given sufficient opportunities by the lower authorities to substantiate its claim for cash credits and these were not availed by the assessee.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Contention of the assessee is that Shri. Raghukumar, who had advanced a sum of ₹13,23,510/- was himself a assessee and the transactions were reflected in the bank account of the said person. In the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that assessee has to be given one more opportunity for substantiating the source of Shri. Raghukumar for giving credits to the assessee. I therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the issue regarding addition u/s.68 of the Act back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Friday, the 3rd day of March , 2017, at Chennai.
Sd/-
(अब्राहम पी. जॉर्ज) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai दिनांक/Dated:3rd March, 2017 KV आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/Copy to:
1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 3. आयकर आयुक्त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि/DR
2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 4. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT 6. गार्ड फाईल/GF 4:
ITA No. 72/Mds/2017